On 10/8/07, Florian G. Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Hi Heikki, I am always slightly late in understanding things. Let me
> > try to understand the use of DSM. It is a bitmap index on whether all
> > the tuples in a particular block is visible to all the backends,
> > whether a particular block contains tuples which are invisible to
> > everyone. But i think this will get subjected to the same limitations
> > of Bitmap index. Even Oracle suggests the use of Bitmap index for
> > only data warehousing tables, where the Bitmap indexes will be
> > dropped and recreated after every bulk load. This is not a viable
> > alternative for OLTP  transactions. But i think i am late in the game
> >  as i haven't participated in those discussions
> While the DSM might be similar in spirit to a bitmap index, the actual
> implementation has a lot more freedome I'd say, since you can tailor it
> exactly to the need of tracking some summarized visibility info. So not
> all shortcomings of bitmap indices must necessarily apply to the DSM
> also. But of course thats mostly handwavering...
> > One Bitmap index block usually maps to lot of blocks in the heap. So
> > locking of one page to update the DSM for update/delete/insert would
> > hit the concurrency. But again all these are my observation w.r.t
> > oracle bitmap indexes. May be i am missing something in DSM.
> A simple DSM would probably contain a bit per page that says "all xmin <
> GlobalXmin, and all xmax unset or aborted". That bit would only get SET
> during VACUUM, and only unset during INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. If setting it
> is protected by a VACUUM-grade lock on the page, we might get away with
> no locking during the unset, making the locking overhead pretty small.

Let me try to understand. Do you mean to say some kind of Test and Set
implementation for Insert/Update/Delete?
So that would mean that there won't be any lock during the change of bit
flags. Why do we need lock to set it then?
It looks like a great idea.

> I couldn't get that piece of discussion in the archive, which
> > discusses the design of Retail Vacuum. So please advise me again
> > here. Let's take up Retail Vacuuming again. The User defined function
> >  which would return different values at different time can be
> > classified as non-deterministic  functions. We can say that this
> > index cannot be created on a non-deterministic function. This is the
> > way it is implemented in Oracle. What they have done is they have
> > classified certain built-in operators and functions as deterministic.
> > Similarly they have classified a few as non-deterministic operators
> > and functions. Can we  follow a similar approach?
> Postgres already distinguishes VOLATILE,STABLE and IMMUTABLE functions.
> It doesn't, however, risk physical data corruption, even if you get that
> classification wrong. The worst that happens AFAIK are wrong query
> results - but fixing your function, followed by a REINDEX always
> corrects the problme. If you start poking holes into that safety net,
> there'll be a lot of pushback I believe - and IMHO rightly so, because
> people do, and always will, get such classifications wrong.

A deterministic function is classified as one, which returns the same
results, irrespective of how many times, it is invoked. So if we form a
classification like that, do you think we will resolve the issue of Retail
Vaccum? In the case of User-Defined functions, the user should be defining
it as Deterministic. Can we frame a set of guidelines, or may be some test
procedure, which can declare a certain function as deterministic? I am just
saying from the top of my mind. Even otherwise, if we can even restrict this
indexing to only Built-in deterministic functions., don't you think it would
help the cause of a majority? I have just made the proposal to create the
index with snapshot a optional one.


Reply via email to